Jihad vs Terrorism: Listen to What Islam’s Authorities Say

def. of terrorismby :

A recent Arabic article appearing in Egypt’s Al Ahram newspaper titled “Is Terrorism Jihad?” written by Islamic law expert Dr. Abdul Fatah Idris offers important lessons—from the fact that jihad does involve subjugating non-Muslims to why the Western mentality is still incapable of acknowledging it.

Idris, professor and chairman of Al Azhar University’s Department of Comparative Jurisprudence at the Faculty of Sharia Law, is a well-reputed legal scholar.  He begins his article by defining terrorism and quoting several international bodies that, in his words

define terrorism as an act of violence or threat of violence coming from an individual either on his own volition or in participation with other individuals.  It targets people or organizations or places or means of transportation or the general public in order to threaten or cause injuries or deaths of the people or simply to cripple the effectiveness of international organizations or to cause the loss or damage of those places or properties or to tamper with transportation to interfere in the friendly relations between countries or between the inhabitants of several countries or to extort concessions from some countries.  The conspiracy to commit or to intend to commit or to participate in the committing or to incite the general public to commit the aforementioned crimes constitutes the crime of international terrorism.  The first clause of the Geneva Convention which was adopted by Suppression of Terrorism Conference held in Geneva in 1937 defines terrorism as a criminal act directed against a specific nation with the aims of creating a state of terror in the minds of specific people or a group of people or the general public.

Idris also mentions how “the Islamic Research Academy, in its report issued on November 4th, 2001, defines terrorism as terrorizing innocent people and the destruction of their properties and their essential elements of living and attacking their finances and their persons and their liberties and their human dignity without right and spreading corruption throughout the land.”

Note that, although he quotes from several international bodies, it is only the “Islamic Research Academy” that includes words like “innocent” and “without right,” both of which clearly leave much wiggle room to exonerate terrorist acts committed against those perceived as not being “innocent” or who it is a right to terrorize, which according to many Muslims, includes the West.

At any rate, in the context of the Muslim Brotherhood’s recent terrorist attacks throughout Egypt—including the destruction of over 80 Christian churches—Idris goes on to agree that,

It is therefore correct to define what happened recently [in Egypt] as terrorism and it cannot be called, as some have done [e.g., Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, et al.], a jihad or ribat in the path of Allah, for the difference between them is vast.  Terrorism is a crime, both according to Sharia and the law; and all international conventions consider it a crime and call on all people to fight against it through all means.

Up until this point, Idris defines and agrees with the international definition of terrorism, and portrays the actions of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (whom he never names) as terrorism.

So far so good.

However, Idris immediately makes a complete reversal in his follow-up sentences:

But jihad in the path of Allah, to make his word supreme, spread his religion, defend the honor of the Islamic nation [umma], and respond to the aggression against Muslims all around the earth—this is jihad: when a Muslim fights an infidel without treaty to make the word of Allah Most High supreme, forcing him to fight or invading his land, this is a permissible matter according to the consensus of the jurists.  Indeed, it is an obligation for all Muslims.  Now if the deeds of the jihad—including fighting the infidels and breaking their spine through all possible means—are permissible according to Sharia, then it is impossible to define those acts as terrorism, which Sharia-based evidence has made illegitimate. A large gap exists between them [jihad and terrorism].  And there is no connection between what is obligatory [jihad] and what is forbidden [terrorism].

At this point, the befuddled Western reader may be at a loss to understand how, exactly, jihad—“according to the consensus of the jurists,” no less—is different from the aforementioned definitions of terrorism.

What’s needed here is for the non-Muslim to try to transcend his epistemology and think, for a moment, like an observant Muslim, especially in the context of two points:

  1. According to Islamic doctrine, jihad, as Idris asserts, is an obligation for Muslims (offensive being communal, defensive being individual).  As this expert of Islamic jurisprudence states:  “But jihad in the path of Allah, to make his word supreme, spread his religion…  this is jihad: when a Muslim fights an infidel without treaty [e.g. dhimma pact] to make the word of Allah Most High supreme, forcing him to fight or invading his land…
  2. In Islamic thinking, even offensive jihad—including “breaking [the infidels’] spine through all possible means”—is seen as something of an altruistic affair, for the good of the world.  More to the point, the ends justify the means.

Taking these two points together—(1) Allah commands Muslims to wage jihad and (2) it is good for all concerned, a means to a glorious end, i.e., “making Allah’s word supreme”—how can Muslims classify jihad as “terrorism,” even when, from a non-Muslim perspective, it seems identical to the international definitions of terrorism that Idris himself delineated and agreed with?

In short, jihad is not terrorism simply because Allah says so—even if the two, back in the real world, are identical.  In the words of Idris: “Now if the deeds of the jihad—including fighting the infidels and breaking their spine through all possible means—are permissible according to Sharia, then it is impossible to define those acts as terrorism.”

Read more

 

Related:

Dr. Boaz Ganor – The Definition of Terrorism: A Fundamental Counter-Terrorism Measure:

Technical committee to propose radical changes to Egypt’s 2012 constitution

File photo: Members of the constitutional assembly attend a session at the Shura Council building in Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Dec. 26, 2012. (Photo: AP)

File photo: Members of the constitutional assembly attend a session at the Shura Council building in Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Dec. 26, 2012. (Photo: AP)

By Gamal Essam El-Din:

A 10-member technical committee entrusted with amending Egypt’s 2012 constitution has almost finished its task. The committee was formed under Article 28 of the constitutional declaration issued by Interim President Adly Mansour 8 July and is headed by Mansour’s legal advisor, Ali Awad.
In a press conference Sunday, Awad told parliamentary correspondents that the committee will finish its work Monday, with the new draft constitution expected to be announced Wednesday. The new constitution will form the bedrock of Egypt’s new post-30 June revolution’s political roadmap, aimed at turning the country into a fully democratic state under civilian rule.
Sources close to the committee told Ahram Online Sunday that after almost one month of thorough revision, the committee’s members concluded that “fundamental changes must be introduced to 2012 Islamist-backed constitution.”
“The 2012 constitution was drafted under the former regime of the Muslim Brotherhood to grant Islamists an upper hand and a final say in Egypt’s political future, and this must be changed now,” a committee source told Ahram Online on condition of anonymity. He added that “When the people revolted 30 June, their main goals were not confined to removing Mohamed Morsi from power, but also changing the fundamental pillars of the religious tyranny the Muslim Brotherhood regime tried its best to impose on Egypt.”
Within this context, the source revealed that members of the committee reached consensus that the new constitution must impose a ban on political parties based on religious foundations.
This would mark a return back to Article 5 of 2007′s constitutional amendments introduced by the regime of ousted president Hosni Mubarak. It stated that, “It is not permitted to pursue any political activity or establish any political parties within any religious frame of reference (marja’iyya) or on any religious basis or on the basis of gender or origin.”
The committee source said, “The return to the 2007 constitution’s Article 5 was necessary after we saw that dozens of political parties were clearly formed on religious foundations and that their main objective was to turn Egypt into a religious state.”
The source explained that “the anticipated ban gained momentum after the committee received requests and proposals from more than 400 political, economic and social institutions, pressing hard for the necessity of safeguarding Egypt against Islamist factions trying to change the civil nature of the country into a religious oligarchy.”
The source, however, argued that “as a return back to a constitutional article that was drafted by the Mubarak regime is expected to stir up a lot of controversy, the new constitution will keep Article 2 of 2012′s Islamist-backed constitution — which states that Islamic Sharia is the main source of legislation — in place.”
Chairman of the committee Ali Awad told parliamentary correspondents last week that Article 2 on Islamic Sharia will be retained “in order to stress the Islamic identity of Egypt.” 
The article, however, will be primarily maintained so as not to give a reason to Islamist factions — especially the ultraconservative Salafist party of El-Nour — to boycott the next stage’s of the political roadmap. Chairman of El-Nour Younis Al-Qadi warned last week that “the party would withdraw from the upcoming political process if it found out that the articles stressing Egypt’s Islamic identity were revoked from the next constitution.”
According to the source, most political institutions have recommended that “if it is necessary to keep the Islamic Sharia article in place as a nod to Islamists like El-Nour, it is by no means necessary to maintain the 2012 constitution’s separate article (Article 219) that delivers an interpretation of Islamic Sharia.”
Mohamed Abul-Ghar, chairman of the Egyptian Democratic Socialist Party and a member of the National Salvation Front that helped lead the 30 June revolution against the regime of Mohamed Morsi, told Ahram Online that “while Article 2 on Islamic Sharia was first instituted by late President Anwar El-Sadat in 1980 and has never faced objections from most political forces since then, it is by no means plausible to turn the constitution into a religious national charter by filling it with as many Islamist articles as possible.” “Article 219 leaves Islamic Aharia clearly hostage to medieval interpretations that could give legitimacy to the ideology of Islamist radicalism and jihadism,” Abul-Ghar argued.
Article 219 of the 2012 constitution states: “The principles of Islamic Sharia include its generally-accepted interpretations, its fundamental and jurisprudential rules, and its widely considered sources as stated by the schools of Sunna and Gamaa.”
Committee sources also told Ahram Online that there is a general tendency that “the upper house of parliament, the Shura Council, would be scrapped.” “Most political factions also press for the elimination of this council, which was exploited by the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies over one year to impose their Islamist ideology on the country,” the source said, adding: “Not to mention that this council cost the state budget too much money at a time of severe economic crisis.”
Joining forces, Abul-Ghar told Ahram Online that “since it was created by late President Anwar El-Sadat to strike a chord with his Islamist foes in 1980, the Shura Council has been always exploited by successive regimes to impose hegemony on the Egyptian press and exercise political monopoly.” The Muslim Brotherhood was no exception. The group exploited its majority in the council in 2012 to “Brotherhoodise national press institutions and the state-owned Radio and Television Union (known as Maspero) and gain legislative powers to Islamise society.”
Read more at Al Ahram

Admin Keeps Calling for Muslim Brotherhood Inclusion as Islamists Incite, Inflate Protest Tolls

By Bridget Johnson:

The U.S. government condemned fresh violence in Egypt and criticized the detention of key Muslim Brotherhood figures even as opponents of Mohamed Morsi say his advocates are both instigating violence and inflating casualty claims.

The National Salvation Front, which was Morsi’s main opposition, said the Brotherhood “has gathered its supporters in Rabaa Al-Adawiya [sit-in in Cairo's Nasr City] for a month now and claims that confronting the armed forces and the police, attacking private and governmental institutions, and endangering the lives of the Egyptian citizens is jihad for God, and they will receive martyrdom if they [die] in these attacks,” according to Al-Ahram.

The coalition also said the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy is to “increase the conflicts, and cause more innocent Egyptian casualties” with an “inciting hostility approach” to exaggerate the numbers of deaths and injuries during the clashes. This has been backed up for many days by leading Egyptian tweeters who have pointed out that the facts on the ground are not as the Muslim Brotherhood was claiming through its social networking operation.

“Based on reports of the committee, all those responsible must be held accountable, including the minister of interior, if it is proven that the security forces were involved in excessive use of force against protesters,” the NSF statement said, concluding that the “leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood were not content that millions of Egyptians [on Friday] took to the streets nationwide to confirm their adherence to the roadmap, announced on 3 July,” and thus the Muslim Brotherhood will try to “exploit the current strife to fuel more conflict and refuse national reconciliation.”

Egypt’s health ministry said 80 were killed in clashes and 722 injured. The Muslim Brotherhood’s official website said at least 200 people were killed and about 5,000 were wounded.

The Muslim Brotherhood, for instance, claimed that pro-Morsi demonstrators near Rabaa Al-Adawiya Mosque in east Cairo were targeted by gunfire from military helicopters and said police on the ground were using live rounds and “intentionally targeting heads and chests.” According to Al-Ahram, Interior ministry spokesman Hani Abdel-Latif said that pro-Morsi protesters had started to block traffic on a bridge, then “clashed with residents of the nearby [working class] Mansheyet Nasr district using live fire and birdshot, and this killed 21 people. The police moved to stop the clashes between the two groups and opened the road again,” but used only tear gas.

Read more at PJ Media

From Walid Phares on his facebook:

995755_10201507355588775_480909119_n

Former Ikhwan leader exposes their military tactics: “Division 95 in charge of provoking violent insurgency” 

A former leader from the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Tharwat al Khirbawi, who defected from their organization, told al Qahira al Yom TV today that “the Muslim Brotherhood are using their ‘security division 95′ (al Firqa Khamsa teseen) to provoke an all out violent insurgency using tactics we know all too well, and I personally taught years ago.” Khirbawi, who was interviewed for an hour exposed the Brotherhood ‘urban Jihadi doctrine’ and its application against the Egyptian Army and Police. “The Ikhwan plan their demonstrations in a paramilitary manner in a war room with maps and experienced veterans involving Jihadists,” said the former MB official. “They launch their militants in ‘Murabbaat’ or squares of demonstrators, some of whom are armed and tasked with triggering violence at the right time. These squares are designated to include exclusive Brotherhood militants while other circles are open to allies and partisans. In short, the exclusive squares open fire on the security forces and the hide behind the other partisans. The expectation is to force the Army and Police to shoot back and kill demonstrators.” Khirbawi adds that “as soon casualties fall on the ground, the scenes are filmed and photographed by specialized propaganda units, which sends automatically to a network of friends and operatives within the Islamist media and international media.” Kherbawi exposed the tactics at length warning that “the propaganda machine of the Ikhwan is very much extended worldwide. There is an operational link between provoking violence and a propaganda machine very efficient worldwide. There is a making of victimization at the hand of an organization bent on violence, using unparalleled influence in the West, in media and think tanks.”

Kharbawi added that “all current leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, such as Mohammed Badi, Khairat al Shater and Mohamemd Morsi are extremists, known as Takfiris, who are inspired by Sayed Qutb” (the ideologue who also inspired al Qaeda). The former Ikhwan leader said “the Brotherhood constantly maintain a secret paramilitary force which is used partially or fully when needed.” He affirmed that their goal “is to do everything they can, including extreme violence to establish a Caliphate.”

The interview was aired between 12 PM and 12:50 PM EST and 7 PM Cairo Time.

 

1004478_10201508363573974_1664680775_n

Leading anchor woman in Egypt: “Massive propaganda campaign links Ikhwan to supporters in Western media”

Leading Egyptian anchor Hala Serhan revealed that according to her sources “a massive propaganda campaign is underway after meetings took place in Turkey and attended by AKP representatives as well as Islamist officials from Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, Libya and other countries.” The “Hala Show” on Dream 2 is one of the leading investigative programs in Egypt and the Arab World. Serhan said “it was decided that a network of friendly journalists in the West in coordination with the Muslim Brotherhood will blast the interim Government of Egypt and use sensitive words in their editorials, coverage and media reporting.” Serhan “said over the past 36 hours or so we can see a wave of coordinated attacks from inside Egypt, on al Jazeera and from US and European outlets fed by Islamist propagandists. Words such as Holocaust, ethnic cleansing, McCarthyism, putshists, majority anti-coup are inserted in the narrative in an effort to protect the Muslim Brotherhood under an umbrella of Western concerns.” Serhan argued that “from aggressors, the propaganda machine wants to transform the Ikhwan into victims.” The popular anchor said there is an ongoing Egyptian media investigation of the Brotherhood’s regional and international influence in media, “which will reveal stunning facts.” An observer in New York said “ironic that the most anti-semitic of all Islamists, the Brotherhood, are now trying to protect themselves with words such as ‘Holocaust,’ while they are the greatest deniers on the planet.”

A Young Jewish Man’s Lethal Arab Spring Delusion

497x380xPochter-2.jpg.pagespeed.ic.6kvHzB4Pqz

Andrew Pochter’s murder represents the apotheosis of a Big Islamic Lie mentality, rigidly imposed by academic, governmental, religious, and media elites. It is well past time to hold accountable the hyperactive promulgators of such Big Islamic Lies before additional self-destructively indoctrinated victims of their warped “teachings” meet similar fates.

Cross-posted at The American Thinker

by Andrew Bostom:

Andrew Pochter, then a recent alumnus of the State Department’s National Security Language for Youth Program, published a report June 8, 2011 for Al Arabiya on his impressions of the Arab Spring uprisings in Morocco. Entitled, “The Acquisition of Reality,” the callow Mr. Pochter lauded Moroccan despot King Muhammad VI’s release of 90 imprisoned jihadists (arbitrarily designated “Islamists” and “Sahrawis,” i.e., the latter being “nationalists” cum jihadists), while lamenting,

This seems to be a good start, though it is important to keep in mind that over 100 political prisoners still remain behind bars.

Just two years later, the well-intentioned, if naïve Pochter’s tragic delusions about the ugly reality of the Orwellian-named Arab spring were shattered, instantaneously, by lethal violence. While photographing demonstrations in the Egyptian port city of Alexandria this past Friday (6/28/13), near an office of the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, Pochter was stabbed, and suffered a fatal chest wound.

Veteran international journalist Jon Williams tweeted that, as per unnamed “intelligence sources,” Pochter’s assailant questioned the young man whether he were an American, before plunging a knife into the victim’s chest. If Williams’ account is confirmed, this would mark the second time in two months that an American was targeted for stabbing in Egypt. On Thursday, May 12, 2013, Chris Stone, an Associate Professor of Arabic, and Director of the Arabic Program at The City University of New York was stabbed in the neck outside the US embassy’s Cairo headquarters. Stone’s attacker, Kafr El-Sheikh, was motivated by his professed hatred of the US, and Americans.  Stone survived the attack, but as Al-Ahram reported, the knife lodged in his neck had to be removed by a surgical operation. Ironically, Stone, who had penned anti-Israel vitriol, and supported demands that the New York Police Department terminate its legitimate (and successful) anti-jihad terror surveillance activities, was recently appointed head of the Center for Arabic Study Abroad by the American University in Cairo, and, as Al-Ahram highlighted, “praised for his pro-Palestine views  and his interest in Arab culture.”

The late youth Andrew Pochter was described in an Al-Arabiya tribute by his former Moroccan Arabic teacher as similarly “filled with the Arabic language and with the Arab world.” Pochter attended Kenyon College, where he was areligious studies major, who co-managed the college’s Hillel, and had just completed his sophomore year. Prior to his fateful sojourn in Egypt, Pochterinterned for AMIDEAST, an American nonprofit that focuses on the Middle East and North Africa, and studied regional politics. His mother, Elizabeth Pochter, maintained that her son read poems to his girlfriend about the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict,”  and insisted that somehow the endless jihad against The Jewish State, “wasn’t just about some detached war to him, but a struggle that he passionately wanted to resolve.” Elizabeth Pochter added, according to a statement by Kenyon College, that her Jewish son,

…was a person who didn’t see the world as separate nations, but a collection of vibrant cultures.

In her encomium,  Marcela Colmenares, an instructor at Kenyon College, who had befriended Pochter,  characterized him  as “absorbing every bit of the Egyptian culture” —just before he suffered an even more horrific fate than the adult Arabic Professor, Stone.

Glaringly absent from these poignant encomia by Andrew Pochter’s mentors—academic, organizational, even parental—is any informed, honest recognition of the dangerous cauldron of Islamic hatredanimated by living doctrines and history—into which he had thrust himself.

Read more 

Also see:

Pathetic Video of Late Andrew Pochter in Immoral Equivalence “Israel-Palestine Poetry Slam” by Andrew Bostom

What Muslim Leaders Say About Islam Dispels the Myth that Jihadists are a “Fringe” Element

Ali-GomaaCitizen Warrior:

WHEN WE discover some basic facts about Islam, our first impulse is to think, “But surely it’s only a small minority of extremists!” If you’ve looked into it, and especially if you’ve read the Quran, you realize the “extremists” are following standard, mainstream Islamic doctrine. That’s a real shock when this first dawns on you.

One day when I was reading yet another popular Muslim leader giving a speech and saying something that would be considered “inflammatory rhetoric” if I said it, but that was nothing more than just plain, ordinary Islamic teachings, I thought I should start collecting a list. Here’s what I have so far (below). I’m sure I’ll add to it as I go along, and I hope you to add to it in the comments.

I thought you could send this list of quotes to those people who tell you “the terrible stuff you say about Islam” only applies to a fringe group of nutcases who have hijacked Islam and twisted and distorted peaceful Islamic teachings into something bad. You could quote chapter and verse from Islamic source books until you’re blue in the face without making a dent because they’ll think hardly any Muslims nowadays believe in that stuff.

This list should disabuse anyone of the notion that the incessant intolerance, hatred, and even violence against non-Muslims is “fringe.” This is not just a small group of “radicals.” This is Islam, plain and simple. The leaders quoted below are hugely popular,even famous mainstream leaders in the Islamic world. For each quote, I’ve provided an online source. Let’s begin:

Ali Gomaa, the grand mufti of Egypt, the highest Muslim religious authority in the world, supports murdering non-Muslims. In the daily Al Ahram (April 7, 2008), he said, “Muslims must kill non-believers wherever they are unless they convert to Islam.” He also compares non-Muslims to apes and pigs. Source

Muhammad Sayyid Al Tantawi, president of Al Azhar University (the most prominent and authoritative institute of Islamic jurisprudence in the world) also approves of killing and maiming Christians, Jews, and other infidels. He added, “This is not my personal view. This what the Shari’a Law says, the law of Allah, the only valid law on the earth.” Source

Syed Abul Ala Maududi, founder of the Pakistani political party Jamaat-e-Islami, said non-Muslims have “absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines.” If they do, “the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.” Source

The Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid teaches that “at first fighting was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory.” He clearly identifies two groups Muslims are obligated to fight: “(1) they who start fighting against Muslims, and (2) they who worship gods other than Allah.” Source

The most prominent Muslim scholar of the 20th century, Sheikh Abu Ala Maududi, stated in his book, Islamic Law and Constitution, on p. 262, that the Islamic State “seeks to mould every aspect of life and activity. In such a state no one can regard any field of his affairs as personal and private. Considered from this aspect the Islamic State bears a kind of resemblance to the Fascist and Communist states.” Maududi added “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam.”Source

There is much more at Citizen Warrior. Bookmark it.

 

The ‘Epidemic’ of Sexual Harassment—and Rape—in Morsi’s Egypt

3005970_370By :

Since the “Arab Spring” came to Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood assumed power, sexual harassment, abuse, and rape of women has skyrocketed.  This graph, which shows an enormous jump in sexual harassment beginning around January 2011, when the Tahrir revolts began, certainly demonstrates as much. Its findings are supported by any number of reports appearing in both Arabic and Western media, and from both Egyptian and foreign women.

Hundreds of Egyptian women recently took to the streets of Tahrir Square to protest the nonstop harassment they must endure whenever they emerge from their homes and onto the streets.  They held slogans like “Silence is unacceptable, my anger will be heard,” and “A safe square for all; Down with sexual harassment.” “Marchers also shouted chants against President Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood group from which he hails,” wrote Al Ahram Online

The response?  More sexual harassment and rapes.

Read more at Front Page

Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the DHFC, is a widely published author on Islam, and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum. Join him as he explores the “Intersection”—the pivotal but ignored point where Islam and Christianity meet—including by examining the latest on Christian persecution, translating important Arabic news that never reaches the West, and much more.

Islam’s Insanities: All Just a ‘Hoax’?

By Raymond Ibrahim:

You read something immensely disturbing concerning the Muslim world—say, that some Muslims seek to legalize sex-slavery or destroy Egypt’s Pyramids or approve of sodomy-suicide-missions or crucify infidels.  Your mind—exclaiming “tell me this is a joke!”—finds it difficult to accept such news. Then, somewhere from the bowels of the Internet, relief arrives.

The much welcomed word “Hoax!” appears, reconfirming your worldview.  All is well again.

But is it?  Are such accounts mere hoaxes?  Or is this just another strategy by those who apologize for Islam’s insanities—a strategy that relies exclusively on the fact that the Western mindset cannot fathom such news, anyway, and thus is all too willing to accept the hoax charge without a second thought?

Recall the news that Salafi parliamentarians in Egypt were pushing for a law legalizing necrophilia.  This information first appeared in Egypt’s most circulated newspaper, Al Ahram, followed by Al Arabiya.  The news went viral, prompting Western dismay.  But then a cutesy Christian Science Monitor article titled “Egypt ‘necrophilia law’? Hooey, utter hooey” tried to return us to the status quo.  Its author, one Dan Murphy, admonished the many websites that disseminated the necrophilia story: “Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet, kids. At least until there’s like, you know, some proof.”

And his “proof” that it was a hoax?  Nothing.  He even confirmed that “there was a Moroccan cleric a few years back who apparently did issue a religious ruling saying that husbands remained married to their wives in the first six hours after death and, so, well, you know [i.e., he permitted necrophilia].  But that guy is far, far out on the nutty fringe.”

Aside from Murphy’s immature tone—“so, well, you know” what?—one fails to see how characterizing a cleric as a “nut” means that his religious ruling is a “hoax”—that it never existed?  Likewise, when it comes to fatwas, it matters not which nation they hail from, so that Egyptians can easily uphold the fatwa of a Moroccan, or vice-versa, because in Islam there is no “national” distinction, only the umma.

And yet, no matter how shallow or lacking in evidence, the hoax charges resonate well, simply because the mainstream Western mentality instinctively rejects, in this case, the idea of codifying necrophilia.

Much of this is exacerbated by the fact that most Westerners, including reporters, cannot independently verify such stories, as they usually originate in Middle Eastern languages.  Which leads to my familiarity with this matter: I get most of my news directly from the Arabic media—knowing that it is better to get my information directly “from the horse’s mouth” than to get it from the limited and filtered Western media.

Accordingly, I am often first to expose stories that go unreported in the West—for instance, the fact that the U.S. embassy in Cairo was being threatened days before the Muhammad movie became a convenient excuse to riot and destroy (the original reason was to coerce the U.S. to free the Blind Sheikh and others).

However, those who prefer to keep such stories suppressed have learned to cry “hoax”—taking advantage of the fact that most Americans cannot read Arabic or verify these accounts for themselves.

Thus, when I documented the indisputable fact that several Islamists were calling for the destruction of Egypt’s Pyramids, the New York Times and Huffington Post cried “hoax”; when I shed light on an obscure “sodomy fatwa” which helped explain the role of intention in Islam (or niyya), Muslims and others cried hoax, including by lying and distorting; and when I reported on how Muslim Brotherhood supporters crucified their opponents, the National Post and others cried hoax.

And yet, none of these naysayers offered any meaningful evidence.  Instead, they banked on the fact that it is simply too hard to believe these stories in the first place.

So what should the objective Western reader do—who is stuck in the middle, does not read Arabic, and cannot independently verify anything—when confronted with absurd news emanating from the Islamic world?

Read more at Front Page

 

 

 

Egypt Begins Descent into Tyranny

By Daniel Greenfield:

Barely two months after taking power, the Muslim Brotherhood has wasted no time in swiftly taking Egypt down the road to a totalitarian state. Its latest target is Al-Dustour, a Christian-owned newspaper, which had condemned President Morsi’s ties to Hamas as a threat to Egyptian national security. Al-Dustour was accused of sedition and stirring up sectarian discord—the latter is code for insulting Islam. Most dangerously, Al-Dustour implied that the Rafah attack had been backed by Morsi’s own Hamas allies to enable him to crack down on the domestic opposition.

Al-Dustour is not the first newspaper to be targeted by the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood has already used its parliamentary position to name dozens of new editors for Egypt’s major state-owned newspapers, including Al-Ahram. Akhbar Al-Youm, the second-largest newspaper in Egypt, will be run by a descendant of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Bana.

In response to the Islamist hijacking of the Egyptian press, many reporters have spoken out against the move and some have even gone on strike. But the Muslim Brotherhood’s assault on Al-Dustour is a warning that the days of independent newspapers opposed to the regime are numbered. Both Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood have suggested Islamist Turkey as the model for the new Egypt. Now the Muslim Brotherhood is imitating Erdogan’s crackdown on the military as well as his totalitarian control over the Turkish press.

In addition to the Muslim Brotherhood’s assault on the press, one television network, Al Fareen, has already been taken off the air. More are certain to follow. Khaled Salah, the editor of the Youm7 newspaper, was assaulted by Muslim Brotherhood protesters demanding the closure of AlFareen and the arrest of anyone who criticizes Morsi and the Brotherhood.

The Rafah attack by Islamist terrorists plotting to invade Israel that killed 16 Egyptian soldiers has been exploited by the Brotherhood to launch a domestic crackdown on the opposition. The Brotherhood has issued a statement blaming Israel for the attack. But in reality Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood have been the true beneficiaries of the violence.

Morsi has used the attack to sack top Egyptian military leaders including Egypt’s Defense Minister, its Chief of Staff, its head of the General Intelligence Service, its chief of the Presidential Guard and its head of the Republican Guard.  The purge had little to do with making Egypt safer and a great deal to do with Morsi and the Brotherhood seizing the opportunity to displace their only real rivals in the country’s tangled power structure.

The Brotherhood has crowned itself with the “revolutionary” label, describing any attack on its power as an attack on the January 25 Revolution and its martyrs. That familiar use of language emphasizes that Egypt is a revolutionary state and is constantly struggling against seditious and subversive forces. And revolutionary states suppress dissent against revolutionary power through state terror.

Read more at Front Page